The 1787 Constitutional Convention has been consistently praised. Four of the fifty-five delegates who attended have been particularly honored for their noteworthy contributions—George Washington, James Madison, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris. The motivation of the three non-signers—Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason—has been repeatedly analyzed. Understandably, however, little attention has been devoted to those who did not attend the Convention. Rhode Island’s refusal to appoint delegates to the Convention is always cited as proof of its obstinance. Some historians have suggested that the absence of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both then serving as diplomats in Europe, was beneficial because they might have been disruptive. The refusal of Patrick Henry to serve has attracted only superficial attention, with historians incessantly citing his alleged statement that he “smelt a rat” as the reason for his refusal to serve. The consequences for the absences have never been fully examined. A counterfactual consideration might reveal the tenuousness faced by the Convention.
The numbers fifty-five—thirty-nine—and three are associated with the Constitutional Convention. Fifty-five delegates attended at one time or another; thirty-nine delegates signed the Constitution on 17 September 1787; and three delegates in attendance on the last day refused to sign the Constitution. The more inclusive number seventy-six is more obscure. It includes fourteen men who resigned or refused appointments, five who never attended, thirteen who attended the Convention but left early and never returned, and two delegates appointed and then replaced by the New Hampshire legislature. The two men who were replaced (Pierse Long and John Sparhawk) were included as delegates when on 17 January 1787 the New Hampshire legislature appointed its congressional delegation to the Convention. However, six months later, on 27 June, the legislature named four delegates—two who were still in the congressional delegation and two who were not delegates to Congress. Only two of New Hampshire’s delegates attended, and they did not arrive until 23 July, missing the first two months of the Convention. Other non-attendees included ten governors, key officials in the Confederation government, diplomats serving abroad, and many other prominent Americans who had been or were then serving as state legislators or judges. (See the listing below.)
“Federal Farmer,” perhaps the single most important Antifederalist essayist (who was probably Elbridge Gerry), rightly understood the tremendous consequence of the absence of some key individuals. In the first of his two pamphlets published in early November 1787, “Federal Farmer,” commenting on the state legislatures’ appointment of delegates to the Constitutional Convention, noted that “the non-attendance of eight or nine men, who were appointed members of the convention, I shall ever consider as a very unfortunate event to the United States.—Had they attended, I am pretty clear that the result of the convention would not have had that strong tendency to aristocracy now discernable in every part of the plan.”
Several rules of the Convention were critical in its procedures and in voting: (1) the rule of secrecy protected the delegates from outside pressure especially over controversial issues that would have evoked instructions from state legislatures; (2) the ability to re-consider issues that had already been decided allowed delegates to change their minds as the draft constitution evolved; (3) votes on issues were cast by state delegations—not per capita; and (4) at least two delegates had to be in attendance for a state to have an “official” status that allowed it to cast a vote on any measure. State votes were often recorded as “absent” or “divided.” These rules were critical in that many votes in the Convention were determined by razor-thin margins of one or two states. Thus, had Rhode Island sent a delegation and had New York’s anti-federal delegates stayed in attendance, the outcome on many votes probably would have been different. A 6 to 5 vote in favor of an issue might have been reversed by a vote of 7 to 6 if Rhode Island and New York had been officially represented. The Maryland delegation might also have had a different political complexion had Luther Martin and John Francis Mercer not left early.
Just as it was important that Washington, Franklin, and Madison attended the Convention, so too it was important that some men did not attend. The most important non-attendees were: diplomats John Adams and Thomas Jefferson; Governors John Hancock (Mass.) and George Clinton (N.Y.); Secretary for Foreign Affairs John Jay (who was also the de facto prime minister of the United States) and Secretary at War Henry Knox. Hancock and Clinton certainly would have opposed some important aspects of the Constitution; while most notably Jay and Knox probably would have argued in favor of a stronger central government than the one ultimately proposed by the Convention. The impact of these alternative provisions—either weakening or strengthening the proposed central government—would probably have had an impact on the ratification debate and the proposal of amendments.
Although the absence of Rhode Island and the official “absence” of New York were critical, the absence of a few key individuals had a less obvious but perhaps equally as critical an impact by tipping the political balance of their state’s delegation. Such was the case with the absence of John Hancock and Samuel Adams from the Massachusetts delegation; Luther Martin, John Francis Mercer, William Paca, and Samuel Chase from the Maryland delegation; and Willie Jones and Timothy Bloodworth from the North Carolina delegation. Not only would these men have changed the actual numerical balance of their state’s delegation, but their presence would have added tremendous political prowess to the anti-nationalist forces in the Convention.
One other important non-attendee was Thomas Paine. Starting with his tremendously important pamphlet Common Sense published in January 1776, Paine had advocated for the establishment of a strong central government that would be dominant in national matters over the democratic state governments. Paine, who resided in New Jersey after the war, left America in April 1787 to obtain scientific and financial support in England and France for his design of an iron bridge.
The absence of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had an important impact on the Convention. Some historians wrongly believe that the Convention benefited from their absence because they would have been divisive. That seems doubtful. Both men were skilled legislators and would have assisted in creating consensus. Furthermore, Jefferson would have demanded the inclusion of a bill of rights, the omission of which almost derailed ratification.
Conversely, Adams was virtually in attendance in that he had written the pamphlet Thoughts on Government in the Spring of 1776 that served as an instructional primer for state constitution-making. He also drafted nearly all of the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 which served as the primary model for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in creating the new form of government. Finally, Adams’s The Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States (1787), the first of three volumes, was just published and was read by some of the delegates. It analyzed republican governments throughout history, laying out the principles of separation of powers, bicameralism, an independent judiciary, and balanced government.
The absence of some individuals perhaps affected their attitude toward the proposed Constitution and the stance that they took during the ratification debate. That attitude might have been different if, as Convention delegates, they would have helped change provisions in the Constitution itself, or by succumbing to the suggestion made by Benjamin Franklin in his last speech in the Convention they would have deferred their own personal attitude to the majority decision of the Convention delegates. Patrick Henry might have fallen into this category. When the Constitution was sent to the states for their consideration, Henry’s position was uncertain. All agreed that his opinion was critical for the document’s ratification. Initial reports indicated that he opposed the Constitution, but Federalists such as Washington and Madison hoped that Henry would become an advocate. He might have been a Federalist had he attended the Convention. Alternatively, it seems doubtful that Samuel Adams’s and Richard Henry Lee’s attitude toward ratification would have been different had they attended the Convention if the proposed Constitution still did not contain a bill of rights. But had Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Jefferson been delegates along with the three non-signers (Gerry, Mason, and Randolph), it seems improbable that the Convention would not have appended a bill of rights to the proposed Constitution. If we accept much of the Antifederalist rhetoric, the Constitution with a bill of rights would have been much less controversial.
Had Hancock and Clinton attended the Convention they might have played different roles in the ratification debate. Both men stayed aloof during the public fray over ratification. Both were elected to their state conventions in which both were chosen as president. Toward the end of their conventions, they each played key roles in securing a majority to adopt the Constitution with recommendatory amendments, and both remained staunch advocates for amendments.
By not sending a delegation to the Convention, Rhode Island perhaps played the single most important role among all of the states—with the exception of Virginia. Its absence from the Convention not only removed its active opposition to some key provisions, but it illustrated the need to change the Articles of Confederation. Some men even asserted that the hand of God had provided Rhode Island as an example of the dangers inherent in weak government. Suggestions were made that Rhode Island should be obliterated and divided between neighboring Massachusetts and Connecticut. After rejecting proposals to elect convention delegates on three separate occasions (14 March, 5 May, and 16 June 1787), the R. I. legislature on 15 September adopted a letter to the President of Congress giving the state’s official position. This letter and an official protest by the Newport and Providence Assembly deputies were forwarded to Congress, which read them on 24 September, four days after Congress had received and read the Constitution from the Convention. The letter explained that the legislature could not constitutionally appoint such a delegation because a state law provided that only the people could elect delegates to a convention intended to amend the Articles of Confederation. Nevertheless, the legislature intended to join “with our Sister States in being instrumental in whatever may be advantageous to the Union, and to add strength and permanence thereto, upon Constitutional principles.” Throughout the ratification debate, Federalists pointed to Rhode Island as the reason why a new form of government was needed.
On 29 June, Alexander Hamilton left the Convention after being continually outvoted by his two New York colleagues. These two delegates—Robert Yates and John Lansing, Jr.—then left the Convention on 10 July. Hamilton returned to the Convention in early August, but, being unable to vote as the sole New York delegate in attendance, he again left on 20 August only to return on 2 September. He was then surprisingly appointed to the Committee of Style on 8 September and signed the Constitution on 17 September as the only delegate from New York.
After remaining silent for about five months, the two New York absentees wrote a letter to Governor Clinton on 21 December 1787 explaining their departure. The letter was widely printed in newspapers throughout the country. Yates and Lansing stated that they “were not present at the completion of the New Constitution; but before we left the Convention, its principles were so well established as to convince us that no alteration was to be expected, to conform it to our ideas of expediency and safety. A persuasion that our further attendance would be fruitless and unavailing, rendered us less solicitous to return.” Mistakenly, they believed that their departure with New York then being totally absent would damage the continued proceedings of the Convention, when, in reality, their absence allowed their opponents to continue to adopt measures that were anathema to them. When they realized that Hamilton was about to sign the Constitution for the state of New York, Robert Yates left his home in Albany to attend the Convention to negate Hamilton’s vote. Unfortunately for Yates, when he arrived in New York City on his way to Philadelphia, he was informed that the Convention had already adjourned with Hamilton signing the Constitution for New York. Yates thereupon returned to Albany.
It is impossible to accurately determine the changes that might have occurred in the Constitutional Convention and in the debate over ratification if a dozen or so important men had attended and participated in the Convention. However, their attendance could very well have significantly changed the Constitution submitted to the states for their ratification.
Those Elected but Replaced, Resigned, or Refused to Serve
Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Md.
Richard Caswell, N.C.
Abraham Clark, N.J.
Gabriel Duvall, Md.
Robert Hanson Harrison, Md.
Patrick Henry, Va.
Willie Jones, N.C.
Henry Laurens, S.C.
Richard Henry Lee, Va.
Thomas Sim Lee, Md.
Pierse Long, N.H.
John Neilson, N.J.
Thomas Nelson, Va.
John Sparhawk, N.H.
Thomas Stone, Md.
Erastus Wolcott, Conn.
Those Elected but Never Attended
Francis Dana, Mass.
Nathaniel Pendleton, Ga.
John Pickering, N.H.
George Walton, Ga.
Benjamin West, N.H.
Those Who Left Early Never to Return
William R. Davie, N.C.
Oliver Ellsworth, Conn.
William Churchill Houston, N.J.
William Houston, Ga.
John Lansing, Jr., N.Y.
Alexander Martin, N.C.
Luther Martin, Md.
James McClurg, Va.
John Francis Mercer, Md.
William Pierce, Ga.
Caleb Strong, Mass.
George Wythe, Va.
Robert Yates, N.Y.
Prominent Men Not Elected
—State Governors*
Richard Caswell, N.C. (elected but resigned)
George Clinton, N.Y.
John Collins, R.I.
Thomas Collins, Del.
John Hancock, Mass.
Samuel Huntington, Conn.
George Mathews, Ga.
Thomas Paine, Pa.
Thomas Pinckney, S.C.
William Smallwood, Md.
John Sullivan, N.H.
*(Only three state executives served in the Convention: Gov. Edmund Randolph of Va., Gov. William Livingston of N.J., and Benjamin Franklin., who was president of the Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council.)
—Confederation Officials
Ebenezer Hazard (Pa.), Postmaster General
John Jay (N.Y.), Secretary for Foreign Affairs (de facto prime minister)
Henry Knox (Mass.), Secretary at War
Arthur Lee (Va.), Board of Treasury
Walter Livingston (N.Y.), Board of Treasury
Samuel Osgood (Mass.), Board of Treasury
Arthur St. Clair (Pa.), President of Congress
Charles Thomson (Pa.), Secretary of Congress
—Diplomats Serving Abroad
John Adams
Ralph Izard
Thomas Jefferson
—Others
Samuel Adams, Mass.
William Bingham, Pa.
Timothy Bloodworth, N.C.
Elias Boudinot, N.J.
James Bowdoin, Mass.
John Brown, R.I.
Edward Carrington, Va.
Samuel Chase, Md.
William Cushing, Mass.
Nathan Dane, Mass.
James Duane, N.Y.
William Ellery, R.I.
William Grayson, Va.
James Gunn, Ga.
Jonathan J. Hazard, R.I.
Henry Lee, Va.
Samuel Livermore, N.H.
Robert R. Livingston, N.Y.
Rawlins Lowndes, S.C.
Thomas McKean, Pa.
Henry Marchant, R.I.
James Monroe, Va.
Samuel A. Otis, Mass.
William Paca, Md.
Edward Rutledge, S.C.
Philip Schuyler, N.Y.
Melancton Smith, N.Y.
Edward Telfair, Ga.
James Wadsworth, Conn.
Jeremiah Wadsworth, Conn.
Paine Wingate, N.H.
Oliver Wolcott, Sr., Conn.
Abraham Yates, Jr., N.Y.